Angels and Demons! Phew

Why does it happen this way? Full of expectance but distressed in the end. I think I was not expectant, but apprehensive. I knew the movie would be a disappointer, ala Da Vinci Code. But at the end of it, I developed sympathy more than anything else.

I think it is very very difficult to bring out the storyline of a successful novel in the same ethos on the screen. Whichever has managed to do so has done on a non-complex or a graphic story. Angels and Demons is too convoluted a story to narrate in a small timespan. For instance, when Robert Langdon discovers the four pillars/places of Illuminati hideouts, there is no excitement or riddle to savour or extricate. He is too sudden and omniscient to find out everything. We viewers are dragged, rather than involved. Compare this with the canvas of a novel. There is this whole aura of Roman churches set up in our mind, and Bernini, Raphael etc pervade our senses. I had such an incomparable time reading Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons. The movies hardly rose to simulate even a moment of that.

The critical pan the movie has received is just, but neglects this deserved sympathy. I don’t know how else the movie could have been made. And spare a thought for Hanks! No, actually he would have made a lot more money with these two movies than with any of his earlier ones. But he has certainly let that superior cinematic sense associated with him drift away a bit. In the late 80’s and 90’s, he was a regular on Best Actor Oscar Nominations (5 in total), but now he is a distant consideration. Hanks, these meaty roles are for more commonplace heroes. We love a Capt John H Miller, Chuck Norland, or Sam Bawdin, more than a harrowing Robert Langdon.